DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-20 remain pending, in which claims 7-15 remain withdrawn. By presentation of the most recent claims filed 10/3/2025, claims 1, 16, and 19 are amended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-6 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Each of the independent claims 1 and 16 recite features relating to “wherein the one or more characteristics includes the fragility of at least one of the one or more food items”. However, it is unclear how the fragility of these items is measured and subsequently, how the washing cycle is adjusted based on the fragility. Clarification is requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. herein referred to as “Lee” (USPN 9,783,920, cited on PTO-892 filed 5/3/2024), further in view of Kim et al. herein referred to as “Kim” (USPN 10,513,817, previously cited on PTO-892 filed 6/3/2025).
As to claims 1-6 and 16-18, Lee discloses a washing machine comprising: a housing with a wash tank (Fig. 1: washing apparatus 100, casing 111, drum 124); and a pump (Fig. 1: pump 136), the pump including: a motor; and a variable frequency drive operable to receive a power input and to generate a motor speed signal corresponding to a motor speed based on the power input, wherein the motor speed signal increases motor speed continuously as the power input is increased from a minimum speed to a maximum speed.
Lee does not disclose detailed features of its pump 136, specifically of the motor for pump 136 and related sensors. However, a general drive motor and associated data collection sensors are taught by Lee at motor 113 having a control unit 230 and position, speed, and current control units 231, 233, 235. Lee’s motor 113 includes an inverter 250 (Fig. 2 and col. 5, para at line 5).
Similarly, it would have been obvious to incorporate a motor for circulation pump 136 that is run with a controller, variable frequency drive, and data collection related to the associated variables of fluid being pumped by pump 136 (i.e. flow rate sensor and fluid temperature sensors in the tub, pump speed sensors), akin to the drive motor’s features. In the art of washing machines, Kim discloses the known use of a variable speed pump motor and related control module for controlling the flow rate of fluid based on the size/height of the laundry load (Kim at col. 9, para at line 23, claim 1 regarding variable pump motor and claim 5 identifying the rotation speed of the pump motor increases as the amount of laundry determined increases). Based on this, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to incorporate a variable speed pump, as taught by Kim, to control flow rate depending on the load size detected, in the Lee reference. This allows for customized flow rate of circulated water, reduces increased consumption needs for smaller load sizes, and improves cleaning efficacy.
The claims recite language relating to the motor speed signal being configured to correspond to one or more characteristics of the one or more food items contained within the wash tank (claim 1) or the adjustable flow rate is configured to be adjusted such that the pump speed corresponds to one or more characteristics of the one or more objects contained within the wash tank (claim 16), wherein the one or more characteristics includes the fragility of at least one of the one or more food items. In Kim at Fig. 4, a load amount determination module 30 is performed in directing the operation controls of the pump motor 170 (this reads on the claimed fragility of the object(s) in the wash tank).
The language reciting “wherein the one or more characteristics includes the fragility of at least one of the one or more food items” is an intended use of the machine, the actual food items are not required features but rather an intended use of the apparatus. For example, a chef’s apron being washed in the prior art may read on the claimed “food items”, and the fragility of washing may be adjusted based on the load size.
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Lee and Kim as applied to claims above, and further in view of Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art referred to herein as “AAPA” (USPN 8,685,170, cited on PTO-892 filed 5/3/2024).
As to claims 19-20, Lee in view of Kim disclose a washing machine and circulation pump. Lee and Kim are drawn to a laundry washing machine. However, known use of a food washing machine is well known as disclosed by AAPA. The circulation pump and related motor and sensor features of Lee in view of Kim would have been obvious to incorporate into other known washing machines, such as the one taught by AAPA, as this allows for greater control of pumping speed, higher washing efficiency, and can reduce damage to the goods being washed. For these reasons, it would have been obvious to utilize this type of pump and motor technology of Lee in view of Kim in other washing apparatus, namely that of AAPA to improve washing efficiency and reduce damage to goods being washed based on detectable washing variables sensed by the apparatus (i.e. flow rate). Features of claim 19 recite that the one or more objects (to be washed) comprise one or more food items; this language is considered intended use and can certainly be achieved by Lee in view of Kim by washing a blender, food processor, colander, food storage containers, kitchen gloves, a nut milk bag, etc.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's remarks filed 5/13/2025 have been fully considered. In response to the remarks and amendments to the claims, the addition of claim language relating to the fragility of the food items is unclear and noted above in the 35 USC 112 rejection. With regard to Applicant’s arguments regarding the claim language of “food items” being different from the prior art, this is not persuasive. Food items may be laundered, including chefs clothing, oven mitts, tea towels, mesh milk bags, etc. Further, this is considered an intended use of the apparatus. For these reasons, the application of the previously applied references are relied on.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RITA P ADHLAKHA whose telephone number is (571)270-0378. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8-5pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Barr can be reached on 571-272-1414. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RITA P ADHLAKHA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711